THE  RELATION  OF  FIRST-CLASS  NORMAL 
SCHOOLS  TO  DEPARTMENTS  AND  SCHOOLS 
OF  EDUCATION  IN  UNIVERSITIES 


CHARLES  H.  JOHNSTON 


Reprinted  for  private  circulation  from 
School  Review  Monograph,  No.  II,  February  1912 


v 


X 


M 


THE  RELATION  OF  FIRST-CLASS  NORMAL 
SCHOOLS  TO  DEPARTMENTS  AND  SCHOOLS 
OF  EDUCATION  IN  UNIVERSITIES 


I 


iw/ERsnrv  of  Illinois  ubj? 


£.3 


2  4 


CHARLES  H.  JOHNSTON 


Reprinted  for  private  circulation  from 
School  Review  Monograph,  No.  II,  February  1912 


THE  RELATION  OF  FIRST-CLASS  NORMAL  SCHOOLS 
TO  DEPARTMENTS  AND  SCHOOLS  OF  EDU¬ 
CATION  IN  UNIVERSITIES1 


CHARLES  H.  JOHNSTON 

Dean  of  the  School  of  Education,  the  University  of  Kansas 


Speaking  from  the  purely  administrative  point  of  view  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  relation  of  the  functions  of  normal  schools  and  the 
functions  of  colleges,  state  universities,  and  endowed  universities, 
in  so  far  as  professional  preparation  of  public-school  teachers  is 
concerned,  will  for  a  long  time  be  differently  solved  by  the  different 
states.  Expert  educational  opinion  will  play,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  a 
large  part  in  this  differentiation  of  function.  If  such  considerations 
could  become  the  chief  directive  force  in  developments  for  the  next 
half  century,  some  uniform  plan  for  the  co-ordination  of  existing 
agencies  for  preparing  teachers,  and  the  elimination  of  some,  might 
confidently  be  looked  for.  When  one  considers,  however,  the 
obstacles  to  such  a  logical  and  ideal  solution  of  this  problem,  he 
may  with  assurance  prophesy  an  era  of  educational  experimentation 
and  exploitation.  The  purely  administrative  obstacles  to  any 
permanent  co-operative  relationship,  as  I  see  them  in  one  state 
even,  are  numerous  and  genuine.  I  shall  attempt  to  illustrate  then 
by  statistical  tables  later  on. 

All  discussions  of  our  question,  whether  administrative  or  purely 
educational,  must  begin  with  an  assumption  which  is  itself  contested 
in  college  circles.  This  assumption  is  that  professional  preparation 
of  teachers  of  all  ranks  is  essentially  analogous  to  the  professional 
preparation  of  lawyers,  physicians,  or  engineers.  Until  we  can 
demonstrate  decisively  this  assumption  to  our  colleagues  in  uni¬ 
versity  faculties,  and  secure  their  constructive  co-operation  and 

1  This  paper  represents  the  author’s  attempt  to  state  the  problem  as  it  appears 
when  interpreted  mainly  from  considerations  suggested  by  the  developments  in 
Kansas.  A  brief  outline  of  Dean  James’s  proposed  discussion,  received  after  this 
paper  had  been  prepared,  indicates  that  the  treatments  will  not  seriously  overlap. 


NORMAL  SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES 


37 


interest,  we  shall  have  to  work  along  with  the  deadening  exaspera¬ 
tion  of  being  tolerated,  distrusted,  and  even  checked  by  actual 
opposition. 

Granting  this  assumption,  which  of  course  we  shall  demonstrate, 
and  I  believe  are  demonstrating  as  fast  as  we  can,  we  of  the  colleges 
and  universities  have  next  to  demonstrate  to  our  clientele,  the 
leaders  among  public-school  men,  that  they  cannot  do  without  us. 
This  is  also  in  many  places  a  contested  assumption.  There  is  a 
vaguely  felt  conviction  that  college  graduates  somehow  in  the  long 
run  do  better  than  normal-school  graduates  in  high-school  posi¬ 
tions,  do  not  do  so  well  in  the  elementary  school,  and  are  the  only 
class  from  which  to  draw  those  who  are  to  become,  with  additional 
academic  training ,  the  college  teachers  of  all  ranks.  What  is  almost 
universally  lacking  is  any  articulate  conviction  of  what  essentially 
pedagogical  equipment  of  undergraduate  and  graduate  grade  is 
essential  for  either  the  high-school  or  the  college  teacher. 

A  third  assumption  is  that,  where  different  types  of  institutions 
organize  to  prepare  teachers,  there  must  be  some  co-operative  state 
plan  put  in  operation  whereby  needless  duplication  of  function  may 
be  avoided,  and  where  the  natural  developments  of  these  same 
institutions  may  continue  as  rapidly  as  possible.  These  institu¬ 
tions  are:  (i)  county  institutes,  (2)  normal-training  high  schools 
(or  other  institutions  by  different  names  of  about  the  grade  of  high 
schools),  (3)  first-class  normal  schools,  (4)  colleges  of  “recognized 
standing/’  and  (5)  universities.  At  present  lack  of  co-ordination 
is  evident,  and  lack  of  co-operation  and  harmony  conspicuously  so. 
County  institutes  will  either  pass  away  entirely,  or  eventually  come 
under  the  control  of  one  or  more  of  the  other  agencies,  or  be 
better  directed  by  state  superintendents,  and  function  as  extension 
summer  schools  for  rural  teachers.  High  schools,  under  some  name, 
or  city  training  schools,  for  some  time  in  some  state,  encouraged 
by  state  or  municipal  aid,  will  strain  to  furnish  to  their  students, 
contemplating  immediate  entrance  upon  primary-grade  teaching, 
some  temporary  pedagogical  training. 

Further  dogmatic  prophesying  may  be  inexcusable.  The 
future  development  of  normal  schools,  supported  by  the  state,  and 
expecting  considerable  federal  support  also,  is  critical  and  prob- 


38 


SOCIETY  OF  COLLEGE  TEACHERS  OF  EDUCATION 


lematic.  I  find  the  conviction  voiced  by  at  least  three  normal 
school  presidents  that  these  institutions  must  vigorously  expand 
or  else  be  crushed  by  the  upper  millstone  of  the  university  schools 
of  education  and  the  nether  one  of  the  multiplying  agencies  of  lower 
grade  already  mentioned.  The  increasing  number  of  normal 
schools  awarding  the  Bachelor’s  degree  and  receiving  recognition 
for  their  graduates  in  the  graduate  schools  of  leading  universities 
serves  adequately  to  indicate  the  ultimate  ambitions  of  these  schools 
to  become  “  recognized  colleges.” 

It  is  a  still  more  delicate  task  to  diagnose  the  policies  of  those 
who  articulate  and  determine  the  pedagogical  functions  of  colleges 
and  universities.  Degree-giving  institutions  are  sufficiently  plenti¬ 
ful  in  every  state  already.  But  degrees  of  traditional  academic 
connotation  per  se  are  no  longer  adequate  pedagogical  passports 
for  entrance  into  respectable  teaching  ranks.  Colleges  and  uni¬ 
versities,  in  many  instances,  have  reluctantly  “ humored”  the 
popular  “superstition”  that  prospective  teachers  can  profitably 
focus  attention  upon  systematic  courses  of  instruction,  sequentially 
related,  which  bear  directly  upon  their  professional  training.  The 
force  of  this  academic  tradition  doubtless  partly  accounts  for  many 
of  the  partially  well-grounded  criticisms  of  pedagogical  courses. 
These  have  been  held  mercilessly  to  certain  inherited  notions  of 
what  constitutes  “academic  merit,”  and  criticized  in  the  same  way 
for  not  producing  more  tangible  professional  results.  The  whole 
thing  has  too  often  been  a  sham  concession,  from  those  of  the 
legislating  college  majority,  to  a  supposedly  mistaken  social 
demand.  The  colleges  and  the  universities  heretofore  have  not 
been  forced,  either  by  their  own  educational  conscience  or  by  their 
estimation  of  the  actual  effect  of  their  attitude  upon  their  own 
enrolments  and  support,  to  work  out  this  problem  constructively. 
Nor  do  I  believe  there  is  yet  any  evidence  of  panic.  I  do,  however, 
believe  that  there  are  some  indications  of  a  more  positive  construc¬ 
tive  interest  on  the  part  of  our  scholarly  colleagues  in  the  broader 
educational  questions  of  school  economy,  administration,  historical 
evolutions,  psychological  foundations,  and  particularly  the  spe¬ 
cialized  pedagogies  of  special  branches  of  study When  such 
scholarly  forces  go  farther  than  tolerate  purely  educational  study 


NORMAL  SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES 


39 


by  taking  a  hand  themselves  in  studying  and  offering  pedagogical 
courses  there  will  be  no  longer  a  question  of  where  one  shall  go  for 
high-grade  pedagogical  enlightenment,  nor  a  question  of  who  will  go. 
All  will  go  who  can  gain  entrance,  all  who  aspire  to  any  grade  of 
teaching  whatsoever,  college  or  otherwise. 

Such  a  preface  settles  nothing.  It  is,  however,  basal  to  every 
consideration  I  can  respect  regarding  an  adequate  conception  of 
the  future  developments  of  university  work  in  education.  It 
affords  a  basis  for  the  differentiation  of  the  pedagogical  functions 
of  normal  schools  and  universities.  The  purely  educational 
question  of  differentiation  of  subject-matter,  scope,  method,  and 
equitable  “division  of  labor”  of  existing  agencies  founded  and 
equipped  for  the  training  of  teachers  requires  a  different  method 
of  attack,  namely,  an  examination  of  the  ruling  conceptions  which 
govern  the  educational  activities  and  ambitions  of  normal-school 
men  and  of  university  men. 

Omitting  consideration  of  those  normal  schools,  a  large  number, 
described  by  President  Pritchett  as  institutions  “  competing  with  the 
high  school  and  even  the  elementary  school,  as  well  as  with  the 
small  college,”  we  may  represent  the  best  class  only.  I  shall  state 
their  point  of  view  as  fairly  as  I  can.  Briefly  it  is  this: 

The  normal-school  movement  for  the  last  seventy-three  years 
has  developed  with  the  fundamental  conception  itself  of  training 
for  teaching  as  a  profession.  It  is  as  clearly  a  part  of  the  public- 
school  system  as  is  the  public  grade  school.  The  high  school  is 
a  development  from  the  elementary  school,  and  so  professional 
preparation  of  secondary  teachers  becomes  logically  an  added 
responsibility  and  function  of  the  developing  normal  school. 
Furthermore,  the  normal  school  is  distinguished  by  having  as  an 
exclusive  purpose  the  training  of  teachers.  Consequently,  bent 
upon  its  own  business,  its  program  of  studies  and  curriculums 
make  no  claim  for  those  literary  and  scientific  fields  of  leisurely 
exploitation  idealized  by  other  types  of  educational  institutions. 
Every  course  is,  within  liberal  limits  consonant  with  broad  modern 
conceptions  of  education,  a  distinctly  professional  study.  Every¬ 
thing  points  vocationally.  Those  desiring  any  education  whatso¬ 
ever,  other  than  teaching  in  public  schools,  must  go  elsewhere;  for 


40 


SOCIETY  OF  COLLEGE  TEACHERS  OF  EDUCATION 


its  courses  look  toward  the  mastery  of  a  well-organized  body  of 
pedagogical  theory,  embracing  historical,  social,  economic,  admin¬ 
istrative,  psychologic,  and  specifically  technical  questions.  Its 
training  school  for  practice  must  extend  perforce  to  the  secondary 
school.  “The  normal-college  curriculum”  must  embrace  all  types 
of  instruction  which  we  find  represented  in  the  public  schools,  and 
few,  if  any,  others.  Further,  the  standard  of  values  must  be  distinc¬ 
tive,  and  in  the  broad  sense  vocational.  Arithmetic  may  be  more 
important  for  the  teacher  than  the  calculus,  reading  than  philology, 
geography  than  geology,  nature-study  than  embryology.  If  so, 
no  academic  logic  of  tradition  may  gainsay.  Content,  free  mastery, 
and  skill  in  pedagogical  application  must  test  the  principle  govern¬ 
ing  the  choice  of  studies  in  the  normal-school  curriculum.  Organi¬ 
zation  of  content  for  presentation  rather  than  the  dominant  college 
ideal  of  organization  for  further  discovery,  for  research,  is  to  be 
the  aim. 

Again,  in  the  whole  field  of  teacher-training  the  normal  school 
has,  by  virtue  of  priority,  a  right  to  enter.  It  has  gone  through 
the  grilling,  and  come  out  of  it  more  than  alive.  Its  best  thought 
and  effort  have  been  given  to  the  preparation  of  the  regular  grade 
teacher.  This  has  illustrated  what  it  can  do,  and  justifies  its 
enlargement  and  equipment  for  more  extensive  service.  It  must 
work  out  a  plan  for  the  specific  preparation  of  rural-school  teachers, 
and  assume  the  leadership  of  the  county  normal  schools  and  such 
institutions.  It  must  for  the  same  evident  reasons  prepare  those 
who  are  to  teach  and  supervise  the  newer  subjects,  music,  manual 
training,  domestic  science,  and  agriculture.  It  must  do  systematic 
extension  work  and  correspondence  instruction.  For  its  ambitious 
advanced  students  and  graduates  advanced  study  must  be  offered 
looking  toward  superintendencies,  principalships,  general  supervi¬ 
sion,  critic  work,  and  high-school  teaching.  Likewise  institutional 
visitation  or  official  school  inspection  must  cover  the  high-school 
territory. 

The  ruling  conceptions  of  the  college  or  university  are  not  so 
easily  stated.  Further,  they  are  unfortunately  conflicting  at 
certain  critical  points.  One  by  one  professional  schools — law, 
medicine,  and  engineering — fostered  within  the  college  organiza- 


NORMAL  SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES 


4i 


tions  of  programs  of  study,  have  cut  themselves  loose  and  thrive 
practically  independent,  built  upon  a  certain  amount  of  college 
work  and  organized  with  strictly  prescribed  curriculums.  Mean¬ 
while  the  college  of  liberal  arts,  with  practically  no  reference  to  the 
alleged  professional  necessities  for  its  large  percentage  of  prospective 
teachers,  has  of  late  foresworn  its  allegiance  to  the  elective  system 
(a  sort  of  recognition  that  vocation  might  affect  choice  of  studies), 
and  set  about  formulating  grouping  systems  and  advisory  systems. 
All  such  regulations  of  students’  work  are  supposedly  governed  by 
educational  principles  quite  other  than  professional  ones.  They 
are  supposed  to  insure  general  culture,  or  education  untainted  and 
undiluted  by  professional  details.  Only  the  legal  minimum  in 
education  courses  is  condoned.  More  than  this  is  often  distinctly  and 
officially  frowned  upon.  As  a  consequence  those  college  graduates 
are  not  as  well  prepared  to  enter  upon  their  postgraduate  work 
in  education  as  are  those  who  elect  other  subjects.  Departments 
of  education,  however,  in  any  way  one  considers  their  evolution, 
have  greatly  prospered.  Without  the  admittedly  professional 
atmosphere  of  the  normal  school  they  are  advancing  inevitably 
beyond  the  status  of  weak  departments  or  sub-departments  toward 
larger  organization  units.  Their  intimate,  even  in  many  respects 
integral,  relationship  with  purely  academic  work,  with  its  draw¬ 
backs,  has  still  somehow  been  their  distinguishing  feature.  The 
evident  tendency  now  to  organize  the  work  for  the  professional 
equipment  of  those  college  students  looking  toward  teaching  as  a 
career  into  “schools ”  marks  a  severely  critical  stage  of  development. 
It  implies,  among  other  obvious  enlargements  as  to  equipment,  a 
thoroughly  equipped  model  high  school,  a  larger  faculty,  and 
distinctly  professional  regulation  of  its  own  affairs. 

This  separate  organization  for  a  select  professional  group  of  the 
student  body  has  not  been  done  in  entirely  good  faith.  It  has  not 
been  thoroughgoing.  It  has  often  been  a  renaming  of  courses,  a 
sort  of  tentative  and  timid  organization,  mainly  within  the  college 
of  arts.  The  work  in  the  departments  of  education  itself,  and  some 
so-called  teachers’  courses,  with  possibly  some  technological  courses 
(drawing,  manual  training,  home  economics,  etc.)  make  up  the 
curriculum.  In  no  case,  I  believe,  for  example,  has  a  definite  part 


42 


SOCIETY  OF  COLLEGE  TEACHERS  OF  EDUCATION 


of  undergraduate  college  work  in  history  been  planned  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  intending  teachers  of  history,  organized  in  such  a  way 
that  they  may  study  the  whole  field  covered  in  an  elementary  way 
by  the  high-school  curriculum.  In  other  words,  the  college  goes 
on  its  way  in  its  grouping  systems  and  other  regulations  and  lets 
the  prospective  teacher  make  his  own  way  through  whatever 
departmental  labyrinths  he  may  chance  to  find,  or  be  guided  by 
some  head  of  a  college  department  of  study  who  often  estimates 
professional  preparation  in  terms  of  hours  of  academic  specializa¬ 
tion  only.  The  student  who  is  to  teach  certain  chosen  subjects 
is  much  in  the  position  he  would  be  in  were  he  in  a  medical  school 
trying  to  find  sequentially  related  courses  bearing  upon  high-school 
hygiene  and  physiology. 

Our  problem  seems  to  be  this:  Can  a  department  or  school  of 
education  map  out  its  distinctive  field  under  the  above  conditions  ? 
I  do  not  believe  it  can.  It  must  be  assumed  that  in  most  cases 
schools  of  education  must  work  largely,  if  not  entirely,  with  the 
same  students  as  the  college  of  liberal  arts  and  the  graduate  school, 
that  most  of  its  students  must  have  or  get  their  A.B.  degree,  and 
that  some  considerable  portion  of  their  undergraduate  work  must 
be  directed  by  those  representing  the  interests  of  the  School  of 
Education.  This  in  the  end  means  some  reorganization  of  the  work 
in  the  academic  departments,  which  are  related  to  high-school 
study.  It  means  that  the  School  of  Education  must  be  largely  an 
organization  within  the  college  and  some  of  the  more  independent 
professional  schools;  not  a  separate  organization  with  its  own 
distinctive  student  body,  nor,  possibly,  faculty  body.  It  must  mean 
this  at  least  until  most  education  work  can  be  of  graduate  grade, 
or  until  the  college  will  relinquish  the  directive  authority  over  those 
of  its  own  Seniors  who  intend  to  teach.  I  personally  should  prefer 
at  the  present  time  the  organization  into  a  “ school”  in  this  pro¬ 
visional  sense,  to  retain  the  function  of  certification,  to  give  no 
Education  degree,  and  to  justify  the  larger  type  of  organization 
by  emphasis  upon  graduate  work,  and  by  the  extension  of  profes¬ 
sional  service  to  teachers  by  such  extra-instructional  and  extra-mural 
work  as  direction  of  practice  high  school,  the  extension  courses,  the 
appointment  of  teachers,  the  organization  of  Probejahr  teaching,  a 


NORMAL  SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES 


43 


system  of  scientific  high-school  visitation  and  counsel,  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  schoolmen’s  conferences  at  the  university,  and  the  extension 
of  facilities  for  summer-school  work,  both  graduate  and  under¬ 
graduate.  Another  inviting  field  is  that  of  training  the  teachers 
of  the  professional  and  psychological  work  in  high  schools,  county 
normals,  and  city  training  schools. 

As  I  see  the  problem,  we  professors  of  education  have  not  suc¬ 
ceeded  better  than  we  have  chiefly  because  we  have  had  to  work 
alone  professionally .  What  is  most  needed  in  most  universities 
is  the  active  and  definite  co-operation  of  the  leaders  among  the 
scholars  of  the  faculties,  particularly  of  those  who  combine  their 
scholarly  interests  with  their  intelligent  concern  for  the  high  schools. 
The  purely  educational  field  is  of  itself  big  enough  to  be  bewildering, 
big  enough  for  bona-fide  academic  courses,  for  purely  research 
graduate  seminars,  and  for  varied  technical  courses.  Beyond  this, 
professors  of  education  are  handicaped  by  trying  to  give  the  spe¬ 
cialized  sort  of  technique  of  instruction  in  given  fields  of  foreign 
languages,  mathematics,  history,  science,  etc.  We  shall  never  be 
able  to  do  this  adequately.  Yet  it  must  be  done.  It  must  be  done 
within  the  organization  of  the  School  of  Education  and  under  the 
sanction  of  the  authorities  who  conceive  the  functions  and  admin¬ 
ister  the  policies  of  universities.  President  Pritchett  thinks  the 
teachers’  course  the  crux  of  our  problem.  In  a  sense,  it  is. 
Teachers’  courses,  so  called,  must  be  conceived.  They  must  become 
the  most  severely  technical  and  avowedly  professional  of  all  our 
pedagogical  work,  given  in  good  faith  by  those  who  know.  The 
organization  of  all  academic  work  leading  to  them  will  be  done 
through  prerequisite  elementary  college  courses,  covering  with  as 
much  economy  of  students’  time  and  credit  hours  as  is  possible  the 
material  which  constitutes  the  work  of  the  high  school.  Other 
prerequisites,  such  as  the  history  and  psychology  of  education,  will 
still  further  emphasize  the  value  of  such  authoritative  technical 
courses  and  put  a  premium  upon  their  professional  value.  The 
former  apathetic  co-operation  of  our  scholarly  colleagues  and 
specialists,  who  offer  these  courses  often  under  protest  or  who 
generally  make  a  misnomer  of  some  academic  course,  has  dampened 
the  professional  atmosphere  both  for  ourselves  and  our  students. 


44 


SOCIETY  OF  COLLEGE  TEACHERS  OF  EDUCATION 


It  has  been  due  in  large  part  to  their  actual  ignorance  of  such 
purely  educational  considerations  and  conceptions  as  the  modern 
available  material  in  the  history  of  education,  educational  psychol¬ 
ogy,  educational  administration,  and  educational  statistical  investi¬ 
gations  furnish.  This  ignorance  and  natural  suspicion  is  passing, 
and  when  it  has  passed  the  main  obstacle  to  adequate  university 
preparation  of  secondary  teachers  is  removed.  A  genuine  pro¬ 
fessional  organization  practically  within  the  present  resources  of  our 
universities  is  possible.  Then  hard,  but  harmonious,  uninterrupted 
work  for  teachers  will  be  as  it  ought  long  ago  to  have  been,  one  of 
the  specific  aims  of  universities. 

If  the  above  account  is  correct,  the  normal-school  insinuations 
that  the  universities  are  not  equipped  for  training  teachers  will  no 
longer  hold. 

Consequently  some  plan  for  the  co-ordination  of  the  pedagogical 
functions  of  these  two  institutions  becomes  evidently  necessary. 
It  is  consequently  clear  from  such  purely  theoretical  considerations 
as  those  above  outlined,  that  the  differentiation,  with  reference  to 
these  teacher-training  institutions  supported  by  the  state,  should 
correspond  to  the  actual  differentiation  of  elementary  and  high- 
school  grades  of  instruction,  particularly  as  both  fields  are  unlimited 
in  the  genuine  and  pressing  problems  they  offer  for  extended  scien¬ 
tific  investigation.  Another  consideration  not  yet  much  empha¬ 
sized  is  that  modern  high-school  instruction  is  academically  of  about 
the  grade  of  normal-school  instruction  and  that  the  high  school 
is  becoming  itself  much  like  a  junior  college. 

The  following  statistical  account  of  a  careful  investigation  of  the 
present  situation  in  Kansas,  1911,  analogous  in  essential  features, 
I  judge,  to  those  of  other  states,  points  likewise  toward  the  above 
as  the  only  conclusion  possible.  Such  practical  existing  adminis¬ 
trative  necessities,  aside  from  the  theoretical  ones,  justify,  I  hope, 
the  position  taken  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  normal  schools  to 
schools  of  education  in  universities.  The  data  reported  represent 
the  facts  in  regard  to  the  training  for  teaching  of  1,345  high-school 
principals  and  teachers,  including  also  superintendents  of  these 
schools  in  Kansas.  The  third-class  schools  indicate  schools  not 
offering  a  full  high-school  course. 


NORMAL  SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES 


45 


SUBDIVISION  OF  THE  1,345  TEACHERS  ACCORDING  TO  INSTITUTION 

ATTENDED* 


First 

Class 

Second 

Class 

Third 

Class 

Total 

University  of  Kansas . 

221 

33 

3 

257 

Kansas  State  Agricultural  College . 

46 

9 

2 

57 

Other  colleges'! . 

University  of  Kansas  and  Kansas  State 

380 

77 

19 

476 

Normal . 

So 

6 

2 

58 

University  of  Kansas  and  other  normal  . . 

4 

3 

O 

7 

Kansas  State  Normal  and  other  college  . . 

58 

17 

3 

78 

Other  colleges  and  other  normal  schools .  . 

74 

14 

5 

93 

Kansas  State  Normal . 

132 

52 

23 

207 

Other  normal . 

33 

13 

3 

49 

High  school . 

17 

6 

3 

26 

Special . 

32 

5 

0 

37 

Total . 

1,047 

235 

63 

U345 

*  The  tables  and  charts  have  been  prepared  by  Professor  H.  W.  Josselyn,  of  the  School  of  Education, 
f  The  totals  for  other  collges  can  be  subdivided  as  follows: 


First  Class 

Second  Class 

Third  Class 

Kansas  colleges . 

220 

64 

11 

Out-of-state  Colleges - 

160 

13 

8 

Totals  (compare  above) 

CaJ 

00 

O 

77 

19 

Total  teachers  reporting  1,345 — 


Total  first  class .  1,047 

Total  second  class .  235 

Total  third  class .  63 


Total 


U345 


Degrees — 


University  of  Kansas  211  A.B.  \ 

24  A.M.  ) 

11  B.S.  )  First  class 

1  M.S.  I 

6  Fine  Arts  / 


21  A.B. 
3  A.M. 
1  A.B. 


j-  Second  class 
Third  class 


Total . 278  University  of  Kansas 


Kansas  State  Normal  12  A.B. 

5  A.B. 
2  A.B. 


First  class 
Second  class 
Third  class 


Total .  19  Kansas  State  Normal* 

•  The  Kansas  State  Normal  School  has  only  recently  awarded  degrees. 


46 


SOCIETY  OF  COLLEGE  TEACHERS  OF  EDUCATION 


Total  Number  Teachers 


a 


on  University  or  College 

e-3  University  or  College  &  Normal 

c=)  Normal 

si  High  School 
nn  Special 

SCALE  n  =  80 

CHART  A 

This  chart  shows  the  number  of  teachers  who  as  students  were  enrolled:  (i)  In 
some  university  or  college;  (2)  in  some  university  or  college  and  some  normal  school; 
(3)  in  some  normal  school;  (4)  in  some  high  school  only;  (5)  in  some  special  school. 

1  .  790 

2  .  236 

- 1,026  have  been  enrolled  in  some  college  or  university. 

3  .  256 

4  .  26 

5  .  37 


Total  1,345 


4*  OJ 


NORMAL  SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES 


47 


Teachers  by  Schools 

i  First  Class 


e 


Second  Class 


c 

— 

Third 

m 

University  or 

College 

University  or 

College 

CD 

Normal 

cm 

High  School 

Special 

SCALE  m  m  80 

CHART  B 


Class 

&  Normal 


This  chart  shows  the  training  of  teachers  on  same  plan  as  Chart  A,  but  gives  the 
details  for  each  type  of  accredited  school  rather  than  the  total  for  all  three  classes. 


x 

2 


5 . 

Totals  . . ! 


First  Class 

Second  Class 

Third  Class 

Total 

647 

119 

24 

790 

186 

40 

10 

236 

165 

65 

26 

256 

17 

6 

3 

26 

32 

5 

0 

37 

1,047 

23S 

63 

i,34S 

48 


SOCIETY  OF  COLLEGE  TEACHERS  OF  EDUCATION 


mema-amm r .  i  FIRST  CLASS 

■ — >  Second 

o  Third 

■  K  U 

□  KSN 

SCALE  ■  s  32 

CHART  C 

This  chart  shows  the  comparison  between  the  number  of  teachers  who  received 
their  training  at  the  University  of  Kansas  and  at  the  Kansas  Normal  School.  Teachers 
who  have  been  students  at  both  a  normal  school  and  a  college  are  not  included  in  this 
chart. 


First  Class 

Second  Class 

Third  Class 

Totals 

University  of  Kansas . 

221 

33 

3 

257 

Kansas  Normal . 

132 

52 

23 

207 

NORMAL  SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES 


49 


Teachers  with  Degrees  from  K  U  &  KSN 

Total 


d 


First  Class 

Second 

Third 


_  KU 

□  KSN  SCALE- *32 

CHART  D 


This  chart  makes  an  interesting  comparison  between  the  Kansas  Normal  School 
and  the  University  of  Kansas  in  regard  to  the  number  of  teachers  who  hold  degrees 
from  each  school. 


First  Class 

Second  Class 

Third  Class 

Totals 

University  of  Kansas . 

253* 

24f 

1 

278 

Kansas  Normal  School . 

12 

5 

2 

19 

*  Includes  24  A.M.;  11  B.S.;  1  M.S.;  6  Fine  Arts.  f  Includes  3  A.M. 


5° 


SOCIETY  OF  COLLEGE  TEACHERS  OF  EDUCATION 


nrnnnnmifcd.::— ar  "i 


1 


H1W~I 


ID  3 

»  KU 

mm  KANSAS  COLLEGES 
a  K S AC 

cd  OTHER 

a  KSN 


E 


SCALE  ■»  s  80 
SEE  NOTE 


CHART  E 

This  chart  shows  a  comparison  in  regard  to  the  number  of  teachers  who  received 
their  training  in:  (i)  the  University  of  Kansas;  (2)  other  Kansas  colleges;  (3)  Kansas 
Agricultural  College;  (4)  colleges  outside  of  state;  (5)  Kansas  Normal  School. 


First  Class 

Second  Class 

Third  Class 

Totals 

1.  University  of  Kansas . 

221 

33 

3 

257 

2.  Kansas  Colleges . 

220 

64 

11 

295 

3.  Kansas  State  Agricultural  College . 

46 

9 

2 

57 

4.  Other  colleges . 

160 

13 

8 

181 

5.  Normal  School . 

132 

52 

23 

207 

Note. — Teachers  who  have  been  enrolled  in  both  a  university  or  college  and  a  normal  school  have 
not  been  counted  here. 


NORMAL  SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES 


51 

If  we  keep  in  mind  the  above  statistical  analysis  of  school 
relations  in  a  given  state  and  apply  a  plan 1  outlined  for  Massa¬ 
chusetts  to  the  Kansas  situation,  the  following  conclusions  appear 
evident : 

State  and  not  local  school  communities  must  impose  standards  for  all 
public  schools,  but  especially  state-aided  high  schools  (one  hundred  and  sixty 
Kansas  normal-training  high  schools). 

Candidates  must  have,  in  addition  to  a  thorough  high-school  course, 
(1)  a  thorough  knowledge  of  at  least  two  academic  subjects,  such  as  is  possible 
only  in  a  four-year  college  course;  (2)  with  (1)  as  a  prerequisite,  scientific 
modern  pedagogical  knowledge;  and  (3)  should  have  some  experience  in  practice 
teaching  under  supervision  of  experts. 

If  Kansas  resorts  to  the  single  standard  for  granting  certificates  (as  voted 
by  the  Association  of  Kansas  Colleges  and  indorsed  recently  by  State  Board 
of  Education),  there  are  three  possibilities  open  to  this  state  for  profitably 
certificating  high-school  teachers. 

PLAN  I  AND  OBJECTIONS 

Plan  I  is  to  set  apart  one  of  the  normal  schools  for  high-school  teacher 
preparation  wholly ,  which  school  shall  adhere  strictly  to  college-entrance  require¬ 
ments ,  and  give  no  certificate  on  other  terms,  and  add  required  practice  teaching  in 
model  high  school. 

Objections 

1.  All  state  colleges  would  object,  and  also  the  University,  as  all  these 
above  institutions  are  now  recognized  legally  as  agencies  whose  largest  function 
is  the  preparation  of  high-school  teachers,  not  only  in  Kansas  but  everywhere 
in  the  United  States. 

2.  Some  of  the  best  prospective  high-school  teachers  would  not  attend. 
It  would  probably  result  in  becoming  an  institution  for  women  only. 

3.  The  equipment  and  the  faculty  qualifications  necessary  to  equal  the 
college  or  university  academic  equipment  would  be  expensive  and  costly,  and 
would  duplicate  college  and  university  plants  which  are  already  available  and 
developing  in  this  direction. 

4.  As  statistics  given  above  show  clearly,  this  plan  would  deprive  the  most 
numerous  and  most  needy  teacher  class,  the  primary-grade  teachers  (4,000  in 
number),  of  the  natural,  traditional,  and  at  present  specifically  equipped  institu¬ 
tion,  the  normal  school,  whose  foundation  for  existence  has  been  that  it  prepare 
elementary  teachers.  It  involves  the  illogical  duplication  of  the  College  of 
Liberal  Arts  of  the  University  by  the  Normal  School,  and  hence  diverting  its 
function  from  elementary-school  problems  to  high-school  problems — to  the 
detriment  of  both. 

1  See  David  Snedden,  “The  Certification  of  High-School  Teachers,”  Education, 
January,  19  n. 


52 


SOCIETY  OF  COLLEGE  TEACHERS  OF  EDUCATION 


PLAN  II  AND  OBJECTIONS 

Plan  II  is  to  set  apart  one  normal  school  to  train  high-school  teachers ,  hut 
require  graduation  from  a  college  for  admission,  and  confine  the  course  to  graduate 
professional  study  and  practice  teaching. 

This  plan  we  should  probably  have  to  resort  to  if  there  were  no  graduate 
schools  already,  and  if  the  state  colleges  were  disinclined  to  co-operate  in 
developing  facilities  for  secondary  professional  training.  However,  both  these 
latter  alternatives  exist  with  unusually  favorable  tendencies  in  Kansas  already. 

Objections 

1.  It  would  duplicate  and  discourage  existing  facilities  for  graduate  work 
in  the  University  and  elsewhere. 

2.  We  could  not  induce  the  prospective  college-graduate  high-school 
teachers  to  choose  this  postgraduate  course  instead  of  what  the  University 
Graduate  School  offers.  This  class  of  University  Seniors  in  College  and  School 
of  Education  is  the  state’s  largest  single  outgoing  group  of  young  high-school 
teachers. 

3.  It  would  be  unjust  to  all  the  agencies  now  existing  and  legally  recognized 
and  consciously  organized  for  this  work. 

4.  It  would  be  very  expensive,  and  undergraduate  work,  particularly  in 
education  courses,  would  suffer  from  lack  of  relation  to  graduate  professional 
work. 

5.  It  would  satisfy  no  existing  state  institution,  but  merely  add  another. 

PLAN  III 

Plan  III  assumes  that  the  preparation  of  high-school  teachers  involves  the 
completion  of  academic  work  of  college  quality,  professional  work  in  education 
courses,  and  practice  teaching  which  cannot  he  given  well  without  the  college 
course  foundation. 

Points  favorable  to  this  general  scheme  in  Kansas  are : 

1.  This  is  the  direction  of  development  which  in  the  overwhelming  majority 
of  communities  the  main  body  of  our  high-school  profession  is  now  taking 
(cf.  statistics  above). 

2.  This  is  the  precedent  set  by  nearly  all  the  states  where  legislation  has 
defined  the  way. 

3.  This  scheme  best  encourages  the  high-school  teacher  to  carry  on  in  a 
natural  sequence  his  further  professional  work  into  graduate  study,  through 
summer  schools,  additional  year’s  leave  of  absence  often,  and  through  corre¬ 
spondence  and  extension  work. 

4.  This  is  the  natural  way  in  which,  in  time,  the  teaching  profession  may 
expect,  as  in  the  professions  of  law  and  medicine,  to  build  its  technique  and 
specialization  on  a  broad  fundamental  training,  furnished  partly  by  scholarly 
academic  colleagues,  as  suggested  above,  and  to  make  its  professional  degree 
or  diploma  signify  an  equipment  which  is  a  dignified  distinction. 


NORMAL  SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES 


53 


5.  This  is  just  to  the  state  colleges  as  well  as  to  the  university,  whose 
specific  study  in  education  has  always  been  the  problems  of  secondary 
education. 

6.  This  is  entirely  in  line  with  the  resolutions  of  the  National  Education 
Association  (. Report  of  Committee  of  Seventeen,  1907)  on  Professional  Training 
of  Secondary  Teachers. 

7.  It  is  consistent  with  the  views  expressed  by  supposed  experts  in  the 
recent  Fifth  Annual  Report  of  the  Carnegie  Foundation  for  Advancement  of 
Teaching,  1910,  pp.  75,  76,  77. 

8.  In  the  writer’s  opinion  any  sort  of  preparation  short  of  this  has  always 
been  recognized  as  provisionally  acceptable  only.  In  view  of  better,  not  as 
good,  preparation  of  high-school  teachers,  and  in  view  of  the  new  disposition 
of  all  colleges  to  recognize  more  fully  that  this  is  their  greatest  professional 
duty  and  opportunity,  it  seems  that  any  checking  or  side-tracking  of  this 
development  would  be  a  calamity.1 

9.  The  ideal  within  a  decade  or  two  for  Kansas  is  to  be  able  to  adopt,  with 
certain  modifications,  California’s  requirements — a  year  of  graduate  study  in 
work  offered  by  a  School  of  Education,  including  supervised  practice,  in 
addition  to  a  four-year  college  course,  which  shall  include  some  of  the  purely 
academic  courses  in  education. 

10.  The  better  high-school  men  in  the  field,  to  a  man,  demand  something 
of  the  sort  suggested  in  Plan  III.  One  extended  report  in  Education 2  includes 
replies  from  leading  high-school  principals  in  every  state  in  the  Union,  repre¬ 
senting  schools  employing  4,200  high-school  teachers.  The  author’s  conclu¬ 
sion  is  that  we  must  look  to  some  such  plan  as  our  Plan  III,  and,  as  soon  as 
possible,  to  some  such  standard  as  that  set  by  California.  One  sentence, 
p.  332,  is:  “The  present  type  of  normal  school  will  not  do.” 

1 1 .  Another  specific  argument  or  evidence  that  Plan  III  is  best  is  the  recent 
action  of  the  State  School  Superintendents’  Association  of  Michigan.  The 
report,  adopted  unanimously  by  the  above  association  and  later,  November, 
1910,  also  unanimously  by  the  Michigan  State  Teachers’  Association,  repre¬ 
senting  members  of  the  university,  the  agricultural  college,  all  the  normal 
schools,  and  all  the  grade  as  well  as  high  and  private  schools,  recommended 
legislative  action  providing  full  equipment  at  the  state  university  ($300,000 
building  for  practice  teaching  included)  for  carrying  forward  the  work  of  train¬ 
ing  secondary  teachers. 

The  following  account  of  the  nature  of  professional  work  for 
teachers,  from  an  examination  of  the  1910-n  catalogues  of  the 
Agricultural  College,  the  State  Normal  School,  and  the  State 

xOf  the  66  graduating  from  a  denominational  college  of  the  state,  61  secured  the 
state  certificate,  each  doing  at  least  15  hours  in  courses  in  Education. 

3  January,  1911;  article  by  R.  J.  Condon  on  “What  the  Schools  Need.” 


54 


SOCIETY  OF  COLLEGE  TEACHERS  OF  EDUCATION 


University,  are  based  upon  comparisons  made  without  drawing  any 
parallel  for  the  courses  in  pure  philosophy  and  pure  psychology 
or  in  other  academic  departments.  Leaving  out  all  references  to 
these  related  fields  and  considering  the  pure  education  courses ,  we 
find: 

1.  The  Agricultural  College  offers  (by  their  divisions  of  spring, 
fall,  and  winter  terms)  in  all  eighteen  hours  of  education,  and  has 
one  professor  who  (according  to  the  catalogue)  does  all  this  work 
and  all  the  work  in  the  department  of  philosophy  besides.  It 
has  no  legal  function  of  awarding  teachers’  certificates. 

2.  The  State  Normal  School  offers  nineteen  courses  in  educa¬ 
tion  (not  including  the  courses  in  philosophy  and  psychology). 
There  are  offered  in  all  forty  hours  of  instruction  in  these  subjects 
(given  in  some  of  the  first,  second,  third,  fourth,  or  fifth  terms  as 
they  divide  their  work  for  the  year) .  Nine  of  their  nineteen  courses 
offered  are  described  in  the  catalogue  as  designed  for  elementary 
and  kindergarten  teachers.  This  means  that  eighteen  of  the  forty 
hours  are  for  this  phase  of  professional  work.  Only  one  course, 
possibly  two  (possibly  four  hours  of  the  forty),  is  designed  for 
prospective  high-school  teachers.  The  rest  of  the  work  is  general  and 
of  such  a  nature  that  it  could  fit  in  with  almost  any  pedagogical 
purpose.  The  preface  to  the  four  courses  (eight  hours)  of  practice 
teaching  reads  (p.  77  of  1910-11  catalogue):  “The  Training  School 
offers  teaching  and  observation  in  all  the  grades  from  the  kinder¬ 
garten  through  the  grammar  school,”  clearly  indicating  that  up  to 
the  present  year  preparation  for  grade  work  has  been  objective. 

3.  In  the  preface  to  the  University  School  of  Education  Bulletin 
occurs  this  statement  of  purpose:  “The  courses  are  planned  to 
meet  the  professional  needs  of  the  following  classes:  College  and 
normal-school  instructors  in  education,  superintendents  and  prin¬ 
cipals  of  schools,  heads  of  departments  in  normal  and  high  schools, 
supervisors  of  special  subjects,  and  teachers  in  high  schools.” 
Not  including  here  any  of  the  teachers’  courses  in  special  branches, 
such  as  history  or  Latin,  nor  courses  in  philosophy  and  psychology, 
as  these  were  omitted  in  the  statement  of  the  other  schools’  equip¬ 
ment,  the  University  offers  sixty-eight  hours  (twenty-seven  courses) 
in  pure  education,  none  of  them  designed  for  any  teacher-training 


NORMAL  SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES 


55 


purposes  below  those  for  high-school  positions.  Legitimate 
inferences  from  both  our  theoretical  considerations  and  our  survey 
of  actual  conditions  seem  to  be: 

1.  The  tendency  in  the  better,  larger,  and  more  important 
schools,  which  can  secure  and  retain  the  best  teachers  available,  is 
to  demand  college- trained  and  professionally  equipped  teachers. 

2.  In  the  second  and  third  classes  of  schools,  relatively  much 
fewer  in  numbers,  the  percentage  of  graduates  from  all  colleges  is 
in  the  former  about  twice,  and  in  the  latter  about  equal  to,  that 
of  normal  schools.  The  University  is  not  a  large  factor  here,  as 
her  graduates  are  taken  higher  up,  and  this  class  of  teacher  (mostly 
from  small  colleges  or  normal  schools)  often  does  grade  work  also. 

3.  The  statistics  for  the  total  number  of  high-school  teachers  in 
the  state  and  the  distribution  of  graduates,  and  the  utter  lack  of 
any  sort  of  adequate  preparation  for  their  work  on  the  part  of  some 
of  them,  still  show  the  demand  for  college  training  wherever 
possible. 

4.  The  deadening  conditions  of  teacher  standards  for  the  lower 
schools  can  mean  but  one  thing — that  some  type  of  institution 
must  bend  itself  to  a  long  and  careful  study  of  the  whole  problem. 
At  present  the  following  policy  seems  to  be  a  feasible  one  for 
adoption  in  Kansas,  entirely  aside  from,  yet  consistent  with,  our 
theoretical  position  already  reached: 

Let  summer  county  institutes  and  normal-training  high  schools 
devote  their  efforts  to  the  8,000  very  poorly  prepared  elementary- 
and  rural-school  teachers.  That  is,  as  a  temporary  measure,  let 
our  high  schools  be  also  (though  of  course  inadequately,  due  to  the 
age  of  the  student)  rural- teacher  training  schools.  Let  our 
normal  schools  work  out  the  problems  (a  century’s  good  solid  work) 
of  the  grades,  administrative ,  supervisory ,  and  pedagogical.  Here 
is  a  class  already  representing  nearly  4,000  teachers.  And  in 
Kansas  it  should  be  remembered  that  there  is  but  one  real  city 
training  school  to  train  even  a  part  of  its  elementary-teacher  force 
(Kansas  City,  Kan.).  The  University  with  help  from  the  colleges 
would  then  work  intensively  upon  the  secondary  problem,  repre¬ 
senting  a  field  with  about  300  superintendents,  as  many  principals, 
and  1,100  high-school  teachers.  The  other  function  of  the  University 


56 


SOCIETY  OF  COLLEGE  TEACHERS  OF  EDUCATION 


School  of  Education  would  be  the  increasingly  urgent  one  of 
carrying  on,  in  connection  and  co-operation  with  the  Graduate 
School,  research  work  and  full  and  extended  investigations  into 
modern  educational  problems,  using  the  schools  of  the  state  and 
our  own  training  school  as  genuine  educational  laboratories  for 
those  of  the  mature  students  who  can  aid  in  working  constructively 
toward  advancing  the  cause  and  profession  of  education. 

There  is  no  architecturally  well-defined  state  school  system. 
The  statistics  above  seem  to  suggest  some  such  economic  division 
of  labor  as  I  have  noted.  The  following  quotation  from  the 
Fifth  Annual  Report  of  the  Carnegie  Foundation  for  Advancement 
of  Teaching ,  pp.  76,  77,  represents  what  should  be  expert  opinion 
on  the  subject: 

On  the  other  hand,  there  can  be  no  denying  the  fact  that  hitherto  the 
normal  schools  in  most  states  have  failed  to  live  up  to  their  responsibilities  in 
the  matter  of  adequate  academic  standards  and  respect  for  the  field  of  the  high 
school.  In  many  cases  the  courses  in  normal  schools  are  mere  reviews  of 
courses  already  taken  in  elementary  schools  or  in  college.  A  few  remarks  on  the 
method  of  teaching  do  not  elevate  these  courses  to  the  level  where  they  can  be 
fairly  accepted  by  the  colleges  for  credit  when  later  the  graduate  of  the  normal 
school  makes  application  for  admission  to  the  university. 

Furthermore,  the  widely  varying  work  undertaken  by  the  normal  school  in 
different  states  shows  how  uncertain  is  the  estimate  of  its  function.  Through¬ 
out  the  Middle  West  one  finds  normal  schools  offering  the  equivalent  of  the  full 
college  curriculum  and  conferring  the  Bachelor  of  Arts  degree.  The  normal 
schools  of  other  states  are  engaged  in  the  work  which  properly  belongs  to  the 
elementary  school  or  the  high  school.  In  this  latter  case  the  normal  school 
becomes  an  active  competitor  with  the  elementary  schools  and  high  schools,  a 
result  most  disastrous  to  the  educational  interests  of  the  people.  These 
schools  are  direct  competitors  of  elementary  and  secondary  schools,  and  their 
effect  is  to  discourage  the  development  of  good  high  schools.  Rarely  have  the 
normal  schools  devoted  themselves  effectively  to  their  most  urgent  work — the  training 
of  teachers  for  the  elementary  schools.  [Italics  mine.] 


* 


